Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less Spending

Sustainable Defense: More Security, Less Spending Final Report Final Report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force of The Center for International Policy Advancing a peaceful, just and sustainable world Advancing a peaceful, just and sustainable world 2000 M Street, NW Suite 720 Washington, DC 20036 T: +1 202 232 3317 E: [email protected] www.internationalpolicy.org Sustainable Defense Task Force Center For International Policy June, 2019 Table of Contents Acknowledgements 1 Executive Summary 2 Elements of a New Strategy 2 Defense Budgets Past, Present, and Future 4 Options for Reducing Spending 5 List of Options for Reducing Spending 7 About the Center for International Policy 8 About the Sustainable Defense Task Force 8 Part One: Strategic Environment and Elements of a New Strategy 9 Introduction 9 Overreliance on the Military Instrument 10 Overview of the Current Strategic Environment 12 The Challenge of Russia and China 12 Regional Challenges 15 Counterterrorism 16 Nuclear Strategy 18 Box 1: A Deterrence-Only Nuclear Strategy 19 New Strategic Challenges 20 Economic Strength 20 Climate Change 20 Elements of a New Strategy 21 Box 2: The Pentagon, Fuel Use, and Climate Change 22 Part Two: The Defense Budget—Past, Present, and Future 25 Mismatch Between Defense Spending Trends & the Workings of the Defense Establishment 25 War Buildups and Drawdowns: Peaks and Valleys in Defense Spending, 1948-2019 26 Spending for Everyday Defense Programs and Activities vs. War Spending, FY1976-FY2019 28 The Budget Control Act: From 800 Pound Gorilla to Paper Tiger 29 War Spending Subsidizes the Base Budget 30 The BCA Decade: A Good One for DOD 32 Deficits and the National Debt at Historic Highs 35 A History of Deficit Spending 35 Debt and Deficits Today and Tomorrow 35 Box 3: The Value of a War Tax 36 An Unsustainable Defense: The President’s 38 Pentagon Spending Plan 38 Box 4: Pentagon Spending is a Poor Jobs Creator 40 Part Three: Options for Reducing Spending 41 Force Structure and Weapons Procurement Reductions 42 U.S. Ground Forces - Army and Marine Corps 42 Army Reductions and Restructuring 42 Marine Corps Reductions and Restructuring 43 U.S. Navy Personnel and Weapons Procurement Reductions 43 U.S. Air Force Personnel and Aircraft Procurement Reductions 44 Routine Peacetime Troop Deployments Overseas 45 End America’s Endless Wars 46 Overhead and Efficiencies 46 Sustainable Defense Task Force Center For International Policy June, 2019 Reduce Operations and Maintenance Spending by Reducing Service Contracting 47 Replace Some Military Personnel with Civilian Employees 48 Close Unnecessary Military Bases 48 Nuclear Weapons, Missile Defense, and Space 49 Eliminate the New Nuclear Cruise Missile 49 Cancel the New Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) 49 Cancel Plans for a New “Space Force” 50 Cancel Research and Development on Space-Based Weapons 50 Cancel Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System (GMD) 51 Cancel New Nuclear Warheads and Roll Back Modernization of the Nuclear Weapons Complex 51 Include the Nuclear Weapons Complex in the Next Base 52 Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Round 52 Appendix A: The Pentagon, Fuel Use, Climate Change, and the Costs of War 54 Appendix B: Methodology for Estimating Personnel and Spending Reductions 58 Appendix C: SDTF Member Bios 60 Endnotes 63 Charts Figure 1: DoD Total Spending for base, supps, wars, 1948-2019 in billions of 2019 dollars 27 Figure 2: Buildups and Drawdowns, 1951-2019 in percent change 28 Figure 3: Defense Spending, FY1976-2019 in billions of 2019 dollars 29 Figure 4: DoD Base Budget with and without War Subsidies, FY2001-2021in billions of dollars 32 Figure 5: Changing Defense Spending Before and for the BCA Decade 33 Figure 6: Alternate Defense Spending Paths, FY2012-2021 Base Budget 34 Figure 7: Cost Per Troop in OCO (in millions of $/Troop) 34 Figure 8: Annual Federal Budget Deficits in Billions of 2019 dollars 36 Figure 9: Alternate National Defense Spending Paths: FY2020-FY2029 38 Figure 10: Gaps Between BCA Caps Extended and FY2020 Administration Plan and 3% Real Growth (in billions of $) 39 Sustainable Defense Task Force Center For International Policy June, 2019 Acknowledgements The Center for International Policy would like to thank all of the members of the Sustain- able Defense Task Force for their participation in this effort. Their insights, comments, and suggestions were invaluable. This was a collective effort, but it should not be assumed that all Task Force members endorse all items or sections of the report. Co-directors Ben Freeman and William D. Hartung took primary responsibility for editing and drafting the report. Amy Belasco did the bulk of the budget analysis and writing in Part Two, on defense budgets past, present, and future, as well as providing useful, de- tailed comments on the structure and substance of the rest of the report. Project consul- tant Carl Conetta did the work on savings from force structure cuts and contributed to sections on threat assessment, strategy, economic challenges, and climate change. Neta Crawford wrote the material on the Pentagon, fuel use, and climate change. Miriam Pemberton wrote the sidebar on Pentagon spending and jobs. Lawrence Korb provided analysis of the readiness issue. Matt Fay wrote the section on the war tax. Mandy Smith- berger wrote the section on savings from cutting private service contractors. Mandy Smithberger and her colleague Lydia Dennett from the Project On Government Oversight wrote the section on reducing the size of the nuclear weapons complex. Gordon Adams, Ben Friedman, Larry Wilkerson, and Ike Wilson gave feedback on the sections on strategy and the new strategic environment. John King provided suggestions on the overall structure of the piece and the budgetary analysis. Laicie Heeley provided editing input and advice on framing of the arguments in the report. Lindsay Koshgarian provided input on options for spending reductions. CIP President and CEO Salih Booker provided input and guidance throughout the project. Kingston Reif of the Arms Control Association and Jessica Sleight of Global Zero provided extremely useful comments on the sections on savings from a new nuclear strategy. Cassandra Stimpson of the Center for International Policy provided excellent attention to detail in copy-editing the report and we’re deeply indebted to Christina Arabia, Director of the Security Assistance Monitor at the Center for International Policy, for formatting the report. We thank Megan Grosspietsch for her help in designing the final report. Pam Rutter of the Project On Government Oversight gra- ciously provided the cover photo for the report. We would like to thank the Ploughshares Fund and the Pentagon Budget Campaign for providing financial support for the task force, along with the Colombe Foundation, which provides partial support for the Center’s work on Pentagon spending. Advancing a peaceful, just and sustainable world Sustainable Defense Task Force Center For International Policy 1 June, 2019 Executive Summary An alternative defense strategy that avoids unnecessary and counterproductive wars, reduces the U.S. global military footprint, takes a more realistic view of the major security challenges facing the United States, and reduces waste and inefficiency could save at least $1.2 trillion in projected spending over the next decade while providing a greater measure of security. Contrary to recent assertions by advocates of higher Pentagon spending, America can be made safer for far less money. The United States has made enormous investments in security in the past two decades. At $716 billion per year, current spending on the Pen- tagon and related agencies is well above the post-World War II average, and only slightly less than the levels reached in 2010, when the United States still deployed nearly 180,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, the Pentagon’s current plan budgets $7.6 trillion for national defense over the next ten years. Any future investment in defense has to be both strategically wise and fiscally sustainable. In many ways, the US has overpaid for security in this century, and in some ways, this spending has been counterproductive. A more realistic, effective defense strategy would not only provide greater security, but also save taxpayer dollars. This report’s recommendations are a sharp contrast to the National Defense Strategy announced by the Pentagon in January 2018 and the companion evaluation of that strategy provided by the National Defense Strategy Commission (NDSC), which has declared that “[t]he security and well-being of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades.” The commission’s report and the National Defense Strategy that it evaluates exaggerate the challenges posed by major powers while ignoring severe threats that can- not be addressed by the Pentagon. Military strategy is just one part of a larger approach to ensure the safety of the United States and its allies and protect U.S. interests. National strategy involves assessing all of the major challenges facing the United States, providing the resources needed to address them, and setting priorities among competing demands. Many of these challenges – from climate change to economic inequality to epidemics of disease – are not military in na- ture. Elements of a New Strategy An alternative strategy for the United States requires a fresh approach, one that takes into account accelerating changes and challenges in the global environment and makes a balanced assessment of the tools needed to address these challenges. Sustainable Defense Task Force Center For International Policy 2 June, 2019 A new strategy must be much more restrained than the military-led approach adopted throughout this century, replacing a policy of perpetual war with one that uses military force only as a last resort, when vital security interests are at stake. A new approach should rely on diplomacy, economic cooperation, and other non-military instruments as the primary tools for addressing security challenges.

Load more